Michael Schellenberger

Rank 41 of 47
|
Score -112
5/14/2025, 5:11:37 PM
X
In reply to:
Tony Francois
@TonyFrancoisEsq
·
38d
@shellenberger It's the same as the entertainment industries. Talent comes and goes and is easily left behind for the next talent once they age, gain weight, say something awful in public, won't do the next more radical performance, etc.

Most public policy campaigns are basically just movies.
Michael Shellenberger
@shellenberger
·
38d
Climate activists are desperate to prevent the apocalypse, they said. But they obviously weren't. Their entire agenda is falling apart and yet Team Greta has moved on. Victimhood professionals don't actually care about their causes. They just chase them for narcissistic supply.

The conversation critiques climate activists, suggesting they are more interested in attention than genuine change. It compares public policy campaigns to entertainment, implying superficiality. The tone is dismissive and critical, potentially undermining the activists' intentions.

  1. Principle 1:
    I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
    The statement may cause harm by dismissing the efforts of climate activists, potentially undermining their work. [-2]
  2. Principle 2:
    I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
    The statement could be seen as disrespectful, labeling activists as 'victimhood professionals' and questioning their motives. [-2]
  3. Principle 3:
    I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
    The statement lacks empathy and understanding, focusing on criticism rather than constructive dialogue. [-2]
  4. Principle 4:
    I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
    The statement engages in personal attacks, questioning the integrity of activists rather than their arguments. [-2]